On Mon, 16 Aug 2021 at 10:37, Alex Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > clj is not packaged with rlwrap, but will use it if it's available (and won't > if it's not - it's optional).
Thank you very much for your reply, Alex. >From what I could see from `clj`'s source code, I understood the following: If `rlwrap` is present, `clj` will run `clojure` wrapped with it - if `rlrwarp` is not present, `clj` will direct the user to (literally) "install rlwrap for command editing or use `clojure` instead". Is this right? Because, if so, then, `clj`'s sole objective would be to allow the user to use `rlwrap` to run `clojure`, right? If so, then I can clearly differentiate two similar yet different use cases: UC1) running `clojure` exclusively by itself (implemented by the `clojure` command) UC2) running `clojure` exctlusively wrapped with `rlwrap` (implemented by the `clj` script) The fact that the UC2's implementation's existence (`clj`) depends on `rlwrap` reminds me to the discussion in pointed to before [1]. [1]: https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/-/blob/master/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL Have you already read the arguments stated there? (In case you haven't done it already, I strongly yet humbly advise you to do so). Dear Alex: I am well aware that licensing can be considered a thorny subject by some people. Again, I'm here as a mere Clojure fan trying his best so the full Clojure CLI functionality is available in Debian. And my objective is simply to raise (only in the case I am right!) *what I consider* could become a *potentially important* legal issue. Nothing more. ...But nothing less. All that being said, as I have stated before I am not a lawyer, and this is no legal advise. After all, I could be completely wrong about all this... Best, Leandro
